Have a small business client that wants to move their current file share to the web. Specs are as follows,

20 to 30 GB of space, file sizes are normal (nothing more than 50 to 100 mb)

3 users

ideal solution would be exact same functionality as windows explorer.

CHEAP!!! But not super cheap. I would like to keep it around $20 per user per month.

I've explored a bunch of solutions, but they are all a bit on the complicated side.

Thanks in advance for the recommendations.

EDIT

SharePoint is a good solution, but it's a bit too complicated and a bit on the expensive side. Mostly because they don't want to spend any time cleaning up their files to get down to 5 or less GB of total storage.

EDIT 2
They have a 16/2 MB cable modem from Comcast. It screams up and down.

Forget it. Can not be done - they are a LOT better off to get a cheap NAS solution, like from QNAP or THECUS.

Unless they ahve a SDSL line, the idea of uploading a 100mbyte file.... makes me cringe. They probably have no clue what they get into. Unless they need to be on the web.... they better count in to get seaparate FAST ASDL / Cable modem internet connections for every user.

I have a distributed cluster (office, nomal end user cable modem, hosting cluster) and for admin purposes I sometimes do file moves. The rest of the people REALLY realizes it - and I already use a replication mechanism with bandwidth limitation.

Get them sharepoint, trial. Just put it up. You can use Windows Explorer there (map a drive - using the http syntax). Show them how fast it is to upload a file there, and how the net behaves for the rest (and really mind you if 2-3 people upload the same time). The idea is probably dead faster than you can say "money".

As I said - they are a lot better with a decent small NAS box. Plus, it is not a dead end once they get more people - web is, unless you get everyone their own ADSL, and even that does not scale ;)

Actually, it will work with dropbox. Dropbox definitely has some limitations, especially the security/permissions piece, but remember there are only 3 people. Not expected to increase anytime soon. You are right that this solution doesn't scale. But they really don't care. they have been 3 people for 3 years. (not part of original spec) so they don't really see the need for anything fancy.
–
Dayton BrownMar 9 '10 at 3:14

Just make sure to try it out first. I can tell you that we are 5 people at the moment, 3 working remote (and basically doing data entry). and it would NOT work. Why? Because we do occasionally store larger files, and it gets SUCKY when omeone clogs up all the bandwidth with a 100mb upload over a 512kb link. 2 people do it, and things get PAINFULL for the third. Test it out.
–
TomTomMar 9 '10 at 5:20

I don't see a problem as he has a 16 GB link. Not 512.
–
Dayton BrownMar 10 '10 at 12:15

16GB link? Like he is living in a data center? Seriously? 16GIGABYTE? This is 16 times the speed of a current LAN connection. If you meant 16MBIT - then not ethat most end user connections are NOT synchroneous - he MAY have 16mbit DOWN - but that does not say he has 16mbit UPWARDS when he is UPLOADING files.
–
TomTomMar 10 '10 at 12:39